Gary Lupyan: Names help us remember

Studies in the late 1990s indicated that infants are better able to group objects into categories– animals versus vehicles, say– if they have already learned the category names…

Gary Lupyan of the University of Wisconsin at Madison… asked 44 adults to look at a series of images of imaginary aliens. Whether each alien was friendly or hostile was determined by certain subtle features, though participants were not told what these were. They had to guess whether each alien was friendly or hostile, and after each response they were told if they were correct or not, helping them learn the subtle cues that distinguished friend from foe– such as the presence of a ridge on the head. A quarter of the participants were told in advance that the friendly aliens were called “leebish” and the hostile ones “grecious,” while another quarter were told the opposite. For the rest, the aliens remained nameless.

Lupyan found that participants who were given names for the aliens learned to identify the predators far more quickly, reaching 80 per cent accuracy in less than half the time taken by those not told the names. By the end of the test, those told the names could correctly categorise 88 per cent of the aliens, compared to just 80 percent for the rest (Psychological Science, vol 18, p 1077). So naming objects helps us categorise and memorise them, Lupyan concluded.

From New Scientist, “The voice of reason,” by David Robson. 4 September 2010. For more about the experiments, visit Lupyan’s projects page.

Jacques Prévert: Odd, to ask people who they really are

Don’t you find that it’s an odd question, to ask people who they are? … They go for the easy answer: their last names, their first names, their positions, but who are they really? They keep it to themselves deep down inside, they carefully hide it.

The poetic criminal Lacenaire (based on a real person) in Les Enfants de paradis (1945). The script was written by Jacques Prévert

Vous ne trouvez pas que c’est une question saugrenue que de demander aux gens qui ils sont ?… Ils vont au plus facile : nom, prénoms, qualités, mais ce qu’ils sont réellement ? Au fond d’eux-mêmes, ils le taisent, ils le cachent soigneusement.

Tomma Abts’ paintings’ names

[Tomma] Abts gives all her paintings titles that she selects from a dictionary of German first names. We lingered before one called Meko, a red, white, and green painting with an op-art feel. Critics describe her paintings as “living things” that incite “inter-subjective confrontation.” Abts frets about which paintings are exhibited together and exactly how they are hung, as if she were arranging the seating plan for a dinner party and it would be a disaster if Teete sat too close to Folme. When I mentioned casually that I’d be curious to see her dictionary of first names, Abts looked alarmed, moved toward the table, tossed a sweater over the mysterious volume, and said, “It is better if it is unknown.”

Seven Days in the Art World (2008), by Sarah Thornton

Shakespeare: What is a name?

[Romeo and Juliet come from feuding families, the Montagues and the Capulets. But they fall in love at a ball, and Romeo, sneaking into her garden, overhears Juliet talking to herself on her balcony]

Juliet. Oh, Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father, and refuse thy name;
or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
and I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

Romeo. [Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?

Juliet.‘Tis but thy name that is mine enemy;
thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What is Montague? It is nor hand nor foot,
nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet;
so Romeo would, were he not Romeo called,
retain that dear perfection which he owes
without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
and for that name which is no part of thee
take all myself.

William Shakespeare (1564-1616), Romeo and Juliet (ca 1595), Act II, Scene 2.

Oscar Wilde: “My ideal has always been to love some one of the name of Ernest”


[Jack Worthing is about to propose to Gwendolen. She thinks his name is Ernest.]

Gwendolen. …Even before I met you I was far from indifferent to you.  [Jack looks at her in amazement.]  … my ideal has always been to love some one of the name of Ernest.  There is something in that name that inspires absolute confidence.  The moment Algernon first mentioned to me that he had a friend called Ernest, I knew I was destined to love you.

Jack. You really love me, Gwendolen?

Gwendolen.  Passionately!

Jack. Darling!  You don’t know how happy you’ve made me.

Gwendolen. My own Ernest!

Jack.  But you don’t really mean to say that you couldn’t love me if my name wasn’t Ernest?

Gwendolen. But your name is Ernest.

Jack. Yes, I know it is.  But supposing it was something else?  Do you mean to say you couldn’t love me then?

Gwendolen.  [Glibly.]  Ah! that is clearly a metaphysical speculation, and like most metaphysical speculations has very little reference at all to the actual facts of real life, as we know them.

Jack. Personally, darling, to speak quite candidly, I don’t much care about the name of Ernest . . . I don’t think the name suits me at all.

Gwendolen.  It suits you perfectly.  It is a divine name.  It has a music of its own.  It produces vibrations.

Jack. Well, really, Gwendolen, I must say that I think there are lots of other much nicer names.  I think Jack, for instance, a charming name.

Gwendolen. Jack? . . . No, there is very little music in the name Jack, if any at all, indeed.  It does not thrill.  It produces absolutely no vibrations . . . I have known several Jacks, and they all, without exception, were more than usually plain.  Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John!  And I pity any woman who is married to a man called John.  She would probably never be allowed to know the entrancing pleasure of a single moment’s solitude.  The only really safe name is Ernest.

Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), The Importance of Being Earnest (1895), Act I

Lucy Maud Montgomery: “Will you please call me Cordelia?”

Marilla came briskly forward as Matthew opened the door. But when her eyes fell of the odd little figure in the stiff, ugly dress, with the long braids of red hair and the eager, luminous eyes, she stopped short in amazement.

“Matthew Cuthbert, who’s that?” she ejaculated. “Where is the boy?”

“There wasn’t any boy,” said Matthew wretchedly. “There was only her.”

He nodded at the child, remembering that he had never even asked her name.

“No boy! But there must have been a boy,” insisted Marilla. “We sent word to Mrs. Spencer to bring a boy.”

“Well, she didn’t. She brought her. I asked the station-master. And I had to bring her home. She couldn’t be left there, no matter where the mistake had come in.”

“Well, this is a pretty piece of business!” ejaculated Marilla.

During this dialogue the child had remained silent, her eyes roving from one to the other, all the animation fading out of her face. Suddenly she seemed to grasp the full meaning of what had been said. Dropping her precious carpet-bag she sprang forward a step and clasped her hands.

“You don’t want me!” she cried. “You don’t want me because I’m not a boy! I might have expected it. Nobody ever did want me. I might have known it was all too beautiful to last. I might have known nobody really did want me. Oh, what shall I do? I’m going to burst into tears!”

Burst into tears she did. Sitting down on a chair by the table, flinging her arms out upon it, and burying her face in them, she proceeded to cry stormily. Marilla and Matthew looked at each other deprecatingly across the stove. Neither of them knew what to say or do. Finally Marilla stepped lamely into the breach.

“Well, well, there’s no need to cry so about it.”

“Yes, there is need!” The child raised her head quickly, revealing a tear-stained face and trembling lips. “You would cry, too, if you were an orphan and had come to a place you thought was going to be home and found that they didn’t want you because you weren’t a boy. Oh, this is the most tragical thing that ever happened to me!”

Something like a reluctant smile, rather rusty from long disuse, mellowed Marilla’s grim expression.

“Well, don’t cry any more. We’re not going to turn you out-of-doors to-night. You’ll have to stay here until we investigate this affair. What’s your name?”

The child hesitated for a moment.

“Will you please call me Cordelia?” she said eagerly.

“Call you Cordelia? Is that your name?”

“No-o-o, it’s not exactly my name, but I would love to be called Cordelia. It’s such a perfectly elegant name.”

“I don’t know what on earth you mean. If Cordelia isn’t your name, what is?”

“Anne Shirley,” reluctantly faltered forth the owner of that name, “but, oh, please do call me Cordelia. It can’t matter much to you what you call me if I’m only going to be here a little while, can it? And Anne is such an unromantic name.”

“Unromantic fiddlesticks!” said the unsympathetic Marilla. “Anne is a real good plain sensible name. You’ve no need to be ashamed of it.”

“Oh, I’m not ashamed of it,” explained Anne, “only I like Cordelia better. I’ve always imagined that my name was Cordelia–at least, I always have of late years. When I was young I used to imagine it was Geraldine, but I like Cordelia better now. But if you call me Anne please call me Anne spelled with an E.”

“What difference does it make how it’s spelled?” asked Marilla with another rusty smile as she picked up the teapot.

“Oh, it makes such a difference. It looks so much nicer. When you hear a name pronounced can’t you always see it in your mind, just as if it was printed out? I can; and A-n-n looks dreadful, but A-n-n-e looks so much more distinguished. If you’ll only call me Anne spelled with an E I shall try to reconcile myself to not being called Cordelia.”

Lucy Maud Montgomery (1874-1942), Anne of Green Gables (1908), ch. 3

Milan Kundera on confiscation of the past

When Tomas looked back at the hotel, he noticed that something had in fact changed. What had once been the Grand now bore the name Baikal. He looked at the street sign on the corner of the building: Moscow Square. Then they took a walk (Karenin tagged along on his own, without a leash) through all the streets they had known, and examined all the names: Stalingrad Street, Odessa Street. There was a Tchaikovsky Sanatorium, a Rimsky-Korsakov Sanatorium; there was a Hotel Suvorov, a Gorky cinema, and a Café Pushkin. All the names were taken from Russian geography, from Russian history.

Tereza suddenly recalled the first days of the invasion. People in every city and town had pulled down the street signs; sign posts had disappeared. Overnight, the country had become nameless. For several days, Russian troops wandered the countryside, not knowing where they were. The officers searched for newspaper offices, for television and radio stations to occupy, but could not find them. Whenever they asked, they would get either a shrug of the shoulders or false names and directions.

Hindsight now made that anonymity seem quite dangerous to the country. The streets and buildings could no longer return to their original names. As a result, a Czech spa had suddenly metamorphosed into a miniature Russia, and the past that Tereza had gone there to find had turned out to be confiscated.

Milan Kundera (1929- ), The Unbearable Lightness of Being (Harper & Row, 1984), pp 165-66. Translated by Michael Henry Heim.